NEUTRALITY 

AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BY 

WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT 

' BEFORE 

THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF 
NEW JERSEY 

With Greeting by ALFRED ELMER MILLS. President 
and Proceedings in the Celebration 

AT WASHINGTON'S HEADQUARTERS 

IN MORRISTOWN, N. J. 

On February 22nd, 1915 



NEUTRALITY 

AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BY 

WILLIAM H. TAFT 

BEFORE 

THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF 
NEW JERSEY 

With Greeting by ALFRED ELMER MILLS, President 
and Proceedings in the Celebration 

AT WASHINGTON'S HEADQUARTERS 

IN MORRISTOWN, N. J. 

On February 22nd, 1915 



^ 



{s>\'^ 



-To, 



O, of 0^ 
jCT li 19 5 



K 



ADDRESSES 

Before the Members of the 
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY 



At Headquarters, Morris rowN, New Jersey, 
February 22, 1915. 

Mr. Mills: 

We will show our patriotic fervor by singing "Amer- 
ica." 

[Audience sings.] 

My friends, welcome once more to the home of Wash- 
ington, which has been a Mecca for patriotic Americans for 
over one hundred and thirty-five years. 

It is a pleasure to look upon this audience. You may 
remember that your dearly beloved President, the late Mr. 
Roberts, used to call you the most representative, demo- 
cratic, aristocratic, intelligent and distinguished body of 
men on earth. [Applause.] I would add to this eulogium, 
except that I do not believe in flattery. [Laughter.] I can 
see from an examination of your faces that Father Time has 
used you well during the past twelve months ; much better 
than he used a relative of mine whose little three-year old 
grandson once said to her, "Grandma, who put those deep 
lines in your face? ' " Why, my dear, it was an old gentle- 
man named Father Time." " Well," said the youngster, "I 
think he is a mean, horrid old man, and I would like to tell 

him so " 11 1 1 

Father Time is not such a bad friend, after all, thougli 
owing to the hardships of the past year many of you, no 
doubt, feel toward him the way a colored woman once felt 
toward a friend of hers. She was taken to a hospital in a 



very dilapidated condition, with a broken jaw. The physi- 
cian in charge did his best to find out what had caused the 
trouble. Finally, after a gieat deal of persuasion, she ad- 
mitted she had iDeen struck with an object. "Was it a hard 
object or a soft object?" ' Tole'ble hard." "Was it a large 
object or a small object?" "Tole'ble large." "Was it com- 
ing rapidly, or slowly?" "Tole'ble fast." Then, her pati- 
ence exhausted, she turned to the doctor and said, "Doctor, 
to tell you the truth, I was only just naturally kicked in the 
face by a gentleman friend." [Laughter.] 

Since we were last gathered within these walls, two of 
the most momentous events of the centuries have occurred, 
almost simultaneously, — the commencement of the world's 
greatest war, and the completion of the Isthmian canal. 

Surely a strange contrast, — the superb ending of the 
mightiest struggle ever waged between man and nature and 
the beginning of the most terrible contest ever carried on 
between man and man. 

When we look across the broad Atlantic we forget our 
own sorrows and our hearts are iilled with sympathy for the 
desolate homes in the British Isles, in Germany, in little 
Belgium, in sunny France, and in the other warring countries. 

This war, no matter how caused, is a sericus setback to 
the world's civilization, and almost makes us forget the 
United States has just achieved the greatest engineering 
triumph of all time. The completion of the Panama canal 
has been called the most important geographical event since 
the discovery of Australia over three hundred years ago, 
and it is almost certainly the last geographical event of the 
first magnitude that will ever ocsur. This triumph of peace 
will add immeasurably to the proiperity, strength and im- 
portance of our country, and will, I believe, bring nearer 
that day so intensely longed for by the peoples of the 
world, when as described by Tennyson 

"The war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags 
were furl'd 

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world," 



There is a man whom we all love, who for many years 
worked hard and effectively to bring this great enterprise to 
a successful consummation, and who is particularly endeared 
to us, because, when he required a Justice for the highest 
court ill the land, he looked down upon little Jersey and 
selected one of our own members for that position. [Ap- 
plause.] Though a Yale man himself he chose a Princeton 
man. [Apphiuse.] I hope that some day a Princeton pres- 
ident may reciprocate and choose a Yale man. [Applause.] 
Just six years ago this afternoon, at the request of your 
chairman, Dr. Pierson, jon arose and wished long life and 
a successful administration to this same man then about to 
be inaugurated president of the United States. That man 
has made good. [Applause.] He is with us today. |The 
audience at this poiiit arose and gave three enthusiastic 
cheers for l\Ir. Taft.] We will now hear from Mr. Taft, who 
will talk to us on "Neutralitv." 



neutrality; 



An Addeess by Hon. William H. Taft at Washington's 

Headquartkes in Moeeistown, New Jersey, 

Febeuaey 22nd, 1915. 

Mr. Taft : 

I am very delighted to have this cordial reception, 
Mr. Chairman. I have been in Jerse}^ under less pleasant 
circumstances. I had a gentle intimation from the gentle- 
men who have charge of this function that there is a time 
limit put upon speakers. Now, there is nothing that helps 
with a long distance speaker, like the Secretary of State, or 
myself [laughter], to meet the requirement— tlie time re- 
quirement — as a commitment to paper of what you have to 
say. It is like a sentence, the one who has to serve it is 
willing to make it short. [Laughter.] Therefore I am go- 
ing to ask you to bear with me while I risk the monotony of 
a written address. 

Gentlemen of the Washington Association of New 
Jeesey : 

Washington's life and service related to many phases 
and problems in our national life, and his views, set forth 
in his correspondence, in his messages, and expressed in 
his executive acts, are broad and comprehensive. No issue 
or problem of national importance presses on a birthday of 
his, the solution of which may not be greatly aided by a 
recurrence to principles which he practised and sought to 
inculcate in his fellow countrymen. 

Washington, the person, in spite of all he has written 
and all that we know about him, is difficult to get at. Bob 
Ingersoll's comparison between him and Lincoln, in which 
he referred to George Washington as a steel engraving, has 
something in it, because of his reserve and the difficulty of 
getting at the real man. Therefore when I run across an 



incident that brings me close to him I rejoice, for there is 
no one who has a profouncler respect for him as a man, a 
patriot and a statesman. After Mr. Knox and I had nego- 
tiated some general arbitration treaties and had sought to 
have them ratified by the Senate, and had received them 
back mutilated and mangled beyond recognition with 
amendments of all sorts of most objectionable character, I 
felt heartsick, because I really hoped they might do good. 
This was not because we needed general arbitration treaties 
between us and England and between us and France, for 
we will never get into war with either of those countries, 
but I was anxious to furnish a model of a treaty of arbitra- 
tion that might suggest itself as a good treaty for other 
countries, and thought ultimately we would get so many of 
these treaties between the various countries that we might 
ultimately secure a league of nations, upon which foundation 
we might establish an arbitral court. But it was not to be. 
It is to be, but it was not to be with that Senate and thut 
President. In the administration of George Washington 
through General Knox, another Knox, you will (observe, an 
earlier Knrtx, who was Secretary of War, and f imiliar with 
Indian affairs, a treaty was made with the Indians and he and 
President Washington went to the Senate, as was the custom 
in those days, to confer personally with the senators and 
secure their advice and consent to the treaty. W^hen they 
sat down. President Washington, like some of his successors, 
found that those senators knew a good deal more about the 
subject matter of that treaty than either the president or 
the expert cabinet officer whom he brought with him, and 
before they got through the consideration of the treaty it 
didn't look any more like the original treaty than — what 
shall I say? — I dcm't want to inject politics here, — than the 
present banking act does like the original bill. The conse- 
quence was that, when they left, Washington was quite 
impatient. He is said to have looked stern, which is an 
indication that he might sometimes have looked otherwise, 
though we have no reason to think so from his portraits. 
As the Father of our country step]ied out from the Senate 



chamber, lie turned to Kuox aud througli those stern lips of 
his he said, "Knox, I'll be damned if I come here a^ain." 
[Laughter.j Now, I am not in favor of profanity as a general 
thing, but those words of his, now more than a century old, 
make me feel nearer to Washington than I ever did before. 
It revealed in him sensations I fully understand. 

I do not intend today to dwell on the indispensable 
character of the service that Washington rendered to the 
country in winning independence and in the framing and 
ratification of the Constitutiou. Under the inspiration of 
these historic surroundings where Washington lived many 
trying days and weeks and mouths of the Revolutionary 
struggle, you have familiarized yourselves with his life. In 
this presence, it would be work of supererogation for anyone, 
though much more a student of his career than I am, to 
review it. 

After independence was won and the Constitution was 
adopted, there still remained to this country a fateful period 
in which the ship of state was to be launched, national 
sovereignty was to be enforced and that independence, which 
had been nominally granted and secured, was to be in fact 
established among the nations of the world. 

I pass by the achievement of national organization 
under the guidance of Washington, assisted b}^ the genius 
of Hamilton and Madison, before Jefi'erson entered the 
Cabinet. I do not discuss the birth of national credit under 
the financial measures pressed upon Congress by Hamilton 
and secured ultimately through the co-operation of Jefi'erson.' 
This 183rd anniversary of Washington's birth, in view of 
the present critical condition in our international relations, 
should bring to our minds the third great achievement of 
his presidential term, the maintenance of a policy of neu- 
trality through a general European war. He insisted upon 
it as necessary before he became president ; he maintained 
it throughout his official life as president against mighty odds 
and under conditions that tried his soul, and in his farewell 
address, he restated it and reinforced it as a legacy to the 
American people. 

8 



He bepjan his first administration at tlie time of the 
outbreak of the French Ilevoliition. The progress of that 
great popular uprising, with all its excesses and the wars 
that grew out of it, was reflected iu American politics of that 
day in a way that makes the currents iu our popular opinion 
today due to the existing European war seem negligible. 
France had been our friend, when we needed a friend, in 
the llevolutiouary War. The French people were engaged 
in destroying the divine right of kings, and substituting 
therefore popular rule. They were encountering monarchical 
intervention to restore the old system. Nothing was better 
calculated to awakan the patriobic and friendlj- sympathy of 
this country, in whose memory the struggles of the Revolu- 
tion were still fresh. The appeals which the French 
Republic, through the ministers which it had sent here, 
Genet, Fauchet and Adet, fell upon grateful and responsive 
hearts and aroused an anxiet}' to help this struggle of ouj. 
friend for liberty in Europe. Moreover, our obligations to 
France under ihe Treaty of 1778 seemed to require us to 
favor her as a belligerent iu her war with England. The 
intriguing and plotting of the French ministers to use the 
United States as a basis of operations against England 
greatly complicated the problem which Washington had to 
face in avoiding an English war. Moreover, the utter 
fatuousness of much of the English policy iu seizing 
American merchantmen without warning and in stirring up 
Indian outrages against our western settlers roused American 
feeling against that country to the highest pitch. 

In the teeth of marked British insolence, Washington 
sent Jay to England to make the treaty which bore his 
name. The flamboyant blundering and partisanship of 
Monroe as minister to France, while the treaty was being 
negotiated in England, leading to his recall, and the apparent 
desertion of Washington by Federalists as well as Republi- 
cans when he signed the treaty, and the subsequent change 
of public opinion when the foreign French intrigue against 
the treaty became known, and when, in spite of its many 
defects, the benefits of the treaty were seen by the country 



constitute a train of events in tlie successful maintenance of 
neutrality which proves it to be more completely and ex- 
clusively Washington's own, and more fully due to liis 
personal foresight, his personal courage and his personal 
influence than any other achievement of his career. 

In the Revolutionary war, of course, he was the leader, 
but there were many others who shared with him the 
responsibility. In the framing of the Constitution, in the 
organization of our government, and in our financial policy, 
Hamilton and Madison and others played a large part. 
Washington sat as an arbitrator in many of these issues 
which were presented to him in the opposing arguments of 
his aS30ciates. As Jefferson said : "Daring the administra- 
tion of our first President, his Cabinet of four members were 
equally divided by as marked an opposition of principle as 
monarchism and republicanism could" bring into conflict 
Had that Cabinet been a [French] directory, like positive 
and negative quantities in algebra, the opposing wi Is would 
have balanced each other and produced a state of absolute 
inaction. But the President heard with calmness the opinion 
and reasoQs of each, decided the course to be pursued, and 
kept the government steadily in it, unaffected by the agita- 
tion. The public knew well the dissensions of the Cabinet, 
but never had an uneasy thought on their account, because 
they knew also they had provided a regulating power which 
would keep the machine in steady movement." 

But the policy of Neutrality was Washino;ton's alone. 
He initiated it. He enforced it. He bequeathed it to his 
countrymen. Before he had been chosen President, he 
wrote as follows : 

''I hope the United States of America will be able to 
keep disengaged from the labyrinth of European politics and 
wars ; and that before long they will, by the adoption of a 
good national government, have become respectable in the 
eves of the world. * * * It should be the policy of the 
United States to administer to their wants without being 
engaged in their quarrels." 

A year after he went into the presidency he wrote to 
10 



Lafayette that we were ''GradQall}^ recovering from tlie 
distresses in which the war left us, patiently advancing in 
our task of civil government, unentangled in the crooked 
politics of Europe." 

In March, 1793, Washington said : "All our late accounts 
from Europe hold up the expectation of a general war in 
that quarter. For the sake of humanity, I hope that such 
an event will not take place. But if it should, I trust that 
we shall have too just a sense of our own interest to originate 
any cause that may involve us in it." 

Again on March 12, 1793, he wrote to Jefferson: "War 
having actually commenced between France and Great 
Britain, it behooves the government of this country to use 
every means in its power to prevent the citizens thereof from 
embroiling us vv'ith either of these powers, by endeavoring 
to maintain a strict neutrality. I therefore require that you 
will give the subject mature consideration, that such 
measures as shall be deemed most likely to effect this 
desirable purpose may be adopted without delay." 

On the 2d of April, 1793, he issued a proclamation of 
of neutrality. It must be realized too that this proclamation 
of neutrality was very difficult to reconcile with the engage- 
ments of the United States under the treaty of France made 
during the Revolutionary war, and it was possible only to 
escape them on the plea that the}' were not binding on the 
United States in the case of an offensive war such as France 
was waging against England. Finally, after his course of 
neutrality had been vindicated and he came to lay his office 
down, he appealed to the American people not to depart 
from it. He said, in his farewell address : 

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign 
nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have 
wdtli them as little political connection as possible. So far 
as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled 
with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. 

"Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us 
have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be 
engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are 
11 



essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must 
be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties in 
the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary 
combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. 

"Our detached and distant situation invites and enables 
us to pursue a different course. 

"Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? 
Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by 
interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, 
entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European 
ambition, rivalthip, interest, humor, or caprice?" 

It seems to me that this is a good text from which to 
preach a sermon and draw a lesson on this Washington's 
birthday when most of the great powers of Europe are again 
at war. We have among our citizens many who look back 
to the country of one or another of the belligerents as their 
native land. The natural result has followed that the 
bitterness of the contest is reflected in the conflicting sym- 
pathies of our people. The nevrspapers of no other country 
have been as full of details of the war and of the circumstances 
leading to it, as our own press. This has stimulated public 
interest and created partisans who attack President W ilson 
because he has been faithfully following the example set, 
and the admonitions given, by our first president. No better 
evidence of this could be had than that, from time to time, 
first oneside and then the other critic S3S the Administration 
for its partiality, its lame acquiescence, or its unfair protests. 
So extreme have some of these partisans become that they 
propose to organize a political party and take political 
action, to be based on issues arisiug out of the present war- 
to ignore altogether the questions germane to American 
domestic politics, and to visit all candidates in future 
elections who do not subscribe to their factional inter- 
national views with political punishment. I am far from 
saying that an unwise or an unpatriotic course in our foreign 
relations may not justify criticism of an administration and 
may not require its condemnation at the appropriate election, 
but in such a case the reasons must be found in injury to 
12 



the interests of the United States, and not in the merits of 
the issues being fought out b}' European nations in an 
European arena. [Applause.] 

I was asked in Canada recently whether the war would 
affect our politics, so as to divide parties on European lines. 
I answered unhesitatingly in the negative. I said that to 
inject European issues into American politics had uniformly 
meant the defeat of those who attempted it. There is no 
better proof of this than the revulsion of feeling against the 
Kepublican party in the latter part of Washington's second 
term, when the people suspected it of making the cause of 
the French Revolution more important than the safety and 
prosperity of the United States. The country rallied to 
Washington's support and his maintenance of American 
interests only a short time after he had signed the most 
unpopular treaty ever negotiated in our history. 

Legislation is pressed to forbid -the sale of arms and 
ammunition by our merchants in trade to belligerents. It 
happens that one party to the war is fully prepared with 
ammunition and arms. It happens that the other party 
is not. It happens that the party which is prepared 
with ammunition and arms is excluded from the seas by 
the navies of their opponents. It happens therefore 
that the only sale of ammunition and arms that can take 
place is to one side. Therefore, it is said that as the side to 
which we are selling arms and ammunition is more or less 
dependent on our sales, we should place an embargo on that 
trade, force that side to peace, and bring the war to an end. 
It has always been a rule of international law that neutral 
countries may sell arms and ammunition to either belligerent 
but that such articles are absolute contraband and liable to 
confiscation on board a neutral vessel. We have proceeded 
on this assumption and our manufacturers have sold arms 
and ammunition to those belligerents who would buy. We 
do not discriminate between the belligerents in the matter 
of furnishing war material. It is only that the fortune of 
war and the circumstances, over which we have no control, 
drevent one side from purchasing in our markets which are 
13 



open to all who can reach them. Nor is it possible to see 
why the doing of that which neutrals in all wars have been 
permitted to do should be made unneutral by such circum- 
stances. The change of the well-established rule, however- 
where such a change would inure only to the benefit of one 
of the parties, might well be regarded as unneutral, as 
has been pointed out by the President. Neutrality leagues, 
therefore, that are organized to press legislation in the nature 
of an embargo on the sale of arms and ammunition do not 
seem to be rightly named. 

But my chief objection to giving up the lawful and usual 
course of a neutral to sell arms and ammunition to belliger- 
ents is based on the highest national interest. We are a 
country which is never likely to be fully prepared for war. 
We must have the means of preparing as rapidly as possible 
after war is imminent and inevitable. We would be most 
foolish to adopt a policy of refusing to sell arms and 
ammunition to belligerent powers which if it was pursued 
against us when we were driven into war would leave us 
helpless. 

In our Spanish war we were obliged to purchase ships 
and other equipments for war from foreign countries, and 
in any future war we would be in the same position. 

More than this, if we were to place an embargo on the 
sale of arms and ammunition to belligerents, we would 
discourage the industry in this country and reduce substan- 
tially our possible domestic means of preparing for future 
wars. It has long been the policy and the wise policy of 
the War Department not to be dependent for its supplies 
on government factories alone, but to encourttge private 
enterprise in this line of manufacture, in order that, should 
national exigency arise, we could depend on aid from private 
sources. To deny to the owners of such investments the 
opportunities of trade with belligerents would be to dis- 
courage them and make our preparedness to resist unjust 
aggression even less than it now is. 

Finally, the general adoption of a course by neutrals not 
to sell arras to the belligerents in a war would greatly stim- 
14 



ulaio the tercIcDcj to iEcrease aimr.nun(s in time of peace 
to be ready for war. Such a stimulus to great armaments 
we all should deplore, because of their burden upon the 
peoples of the countries affected, and because of the temp 
tation to war involved in their maintenance. 

Another criticism against the Administration comes not 
only from those whose predilections are based on their 
European origin, but also from native Americans who are 
aroused by what they conceive to be the possible evil world 
consequences of this war and the merits of its issues. They 
complain of the Administration because it did not protest 
against every violation of international law committed by 
one set of the belligerents against the ether. This view was 
made to depend at first upon what was thought to be a 
treaty obligation on the part of the United States to protest, 
growing out of the provisions of Hague treaties, to which 
most of the belligerents together with the United States 
have been signatories. Further examination, I think, show- 
ed that most of these treaties were by their own terms in- 
operative, because they bad not been signed by all the 
belligerents. While the people of the United States might 
well maintain the wisdom and righteousness of such pro- 
visions, or deplore their violation, their government was not 
under any treaty obligation to take part in the controversy, 
to express an opinion, or to register a protest. 

It must be noted that in every war one side must be 
wrong, and frequently both sides are wrong. Frequently 
both sides violate international law and the laws of war 
against each other. It is most diffic.dt for a neutral to 
learn all the facts in such a way as to reach a safe and 
certain judgment on the merits. Moreover, even if this is 
possible, it has been the policy of our government since its 
establishment to decline to enter the European arena of war 
in any capacity, and our obligation to take sides in a 
European war and enter a protest must be exceedingly clear 
before we should permit ourselves to do so. When an 
issue made is being fought by millions of men on one side 
and by millions of men on another, a neutral nation which 
15 



fails to protest against violations of the laws of war as 
between belligerents can not be said to acquiesce in those 
violations or to recognize tliem in any way as a precedent 
wliich will embarrass it. We must realize that in a contro- 
versy like this, where the whole life-blood of each contestant 
is being poured out, and in which its very existence as a 
nation is at stake, protests like those proposed, in respect 
of issues in which a neutral is not directly interested, may 
Avell seem to the highly sensitive peoples engaged a formal 
declaration of sympathy in the war with one side or the 
other. This must inevitably and materially injure our 
attitude of neutrality, without accomplishing any good. 
Therefore, while I sympathize with the Belgians in this war, 
its bloody center, I approve and commend to the full the 
attitude of President Wilson in declining to consider the 
evidence brought before him in respect to alleged atrocities 
in Belgium, and to express an opinion on the issues pre- 
sented. A similar decision with respect to the application 
of the German Government to have him investigate the 
evidence of the use of dum-dum bullets was equally sound. 
We are not sitting as judges of issues between countries in 
Europe in this great war. We are seeking to maintain strict 
neutrality, and until our decision is invoked, with an agree- 
ment to abide by our judgment and recommendation for 
settlement, we need not embroil ourselves by official 
expressions of criticism or approval of the acts of the par- 
ticipants in the war. | Applause.] This is not only the 
wisest course for us to pursue in maintaining an attitude that 
may give us influence in promoting mediation when mediation 
is possible; but it will help us avoid being drawn into the war. 
It is said that we show ourselves utterly selfish and 
commercial when we refuse to protest against a breach of 
the laws of war by one belligerent against another, and yet 
register protest against the violation of our neutral trade 
rights. Thus our critics say we exalt our pockets above 
principle. This is a confusion of ideas. When the action 
of a belligerent directly affects our commercial interests, 
then we must protest or acquiesce in the wrong. When the 
16 



wrong is not committed against us but against a European 
nation in a European quarrel, absence of protest by us is 
not acquiescence by us but only consistent maintenance of 
our National policy to avoid European quarrels. Not only 
was this rule laid down by Washington, but it has found 
authoritative expression in the reservation made in the treaty 
between the United States, Germany, Austria- Hungary, 
Belgium, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, The Nether- 
lands, Portugal, Kussia and Sweden known as the Treaty of 
Algeciras, proclaimed January 2t3, 1907. The reservation 
was as follows: 

"As a part of this act of ratification, the Senate under- 
stands that the participation of the United States in the 
Algeciras Conference, and in t^ie formulation and adoption 
of the General Act and Protocol which resulted therefrom, 
was with the sole purpose of preserving and increasing its 
commerce in Morocco, the protection as to life, liberty and 
property of its citizens residing or traveling therein, and of 
aiding by its friendly offices and efforts in removing friction 
and controversy which seemed to menace the peace between 
the powers signatory with the United States to the treaty of 
1880, all of which are on terms of amity with this govern- 
ment; and without purpose to depart from the traditional 
American foreign policy which forbids participation by the 
United States in the settlement of political questions which 
are entirely European in their scope." 

It is noteworthy that this reservation was proposed by 
the Senate and approved and signed by President Koosevelt in 
the same years in which the Hague Treaties were signed. 
It throws light on the attitude we proposed to take in 
respect of breaches of those treaties committed by one 
European Nation against another. 

Our interest in the present war, therefore, under the 
conditions that exist, should be limited as set forth in this 
reservation, to wit, to 

"Preserving and increasing the commerce of the United 
States with the belligerents, to the protection as to life, 
liberty and property of our citizsus residing or traveling in 

17 



their countries, ami to tlie aiding by our friendly offices and 
efff)rts in bringiuo; those countries to peace." 

Our efforts for peace have been made as complete as 
possible, for the President has already tendered his good 
offices by way of mediation between the powers, and they 
have not been accepted. 

In preserving the commerce of the United States with 
the belligerents, however, we are face to face Avith a crisis. 
AYe are threatened with a serious invasion of our rights as 
neutrals in trading with the bel]igereu.t countries. What 
certainly is an innovation upon previous rules in respect to 
neutral commerce and contraband of war has been initiated 
bv the belligerents of both sides. The plantirjg of mines in 
the open sea and the nse of submarines to send neutral ves- 
sels to the bottom without inquiry as to their neutrality 
when found in a so-called war zone of the open sea, are al] 
of them a variation from the rules of international law 
governing the action of belligerents towards neutral trade. 
When their violation results in the destruction of the lives 
of American citizens, or of American property, a grave issue 
will arise as to what the duty of this Government is. The 
responsibility of the President and Congress in meeting the 
critical issue thus presented, in maintaining our national 
rights and oar national honor on the one hand, with due 
regard to the jiwful consequences to our 90,000,000 of people, 
of engaging in this horrible world war, on the other, will be 
very great. It involves on their part a judgment so 
momentous in its consequences that we should earnestly 
])ray that the necessity for it may be averted. If. however, 
the occasion arises, we can be confident tliat those in 
authority will be actuated by the highest patriotic motives 
and by the deepest concern for our national welfare. We 
must not allow our pride or momentary passion to influence 
our judgment. We must exercise the deliberation that the 
fateful consequences in the loss of our best blood and the 
enormous waste of treasure would necessarily impose upon 
us. We must allow no jingo spirit to prevail. We must 
abide the judgment of those to whom we have entrusted the 
18 



authority, and when the President shall act, we must stand 
I)}' him to the end. [Applause.] In this determination we 
may be sure that all will join, no matter what their previous 
views, no matter what their European origin. All will for- 
get their differences in self-sacrificing loyalty to our common 
flag and our common country. [Applause.] 

Mn. IVIiLLS. I hear a motion extending the thanks of 
this Association to Mr. Taft for his magnificent address. All 
in favor of this motion will please rise. 

We will close by singing " Auld Lang Syne." 



19 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 




020 914 138 3# 



